I mean no disrespect to Bo Jackson but being great at 6 different sports kindof makes me wonder if he was the best at any ONE sport?
Like take for example cricket: Most historians consider Sir Don Bradman as the greatest batsman and also the greatest cricketer of all time but Sir Gary Sobers who was an allrounder(legend with both ball and bat) isn't considered the greatest(when he excelled at both batting and bowling).
Just thought I'd put this rather random info out there for you to consider but hey I'm watching some of Bo Jackson's youtube vids right now and I can see why he's considered the greatest,the man was a dynamite.

Click to expand...

Look up what the heisman trophy is, and look up all the records he set.

His opinion is certainly more valid than some fed worshipping d-bag on talk-tennis though.

Click to expand...

Fed-worshipping dbag? I never even said that Federer should be number 1 on this list. Of course, I didn't expect an impaired fanboy like yourself to keep track of arguments. Phil Knight's word might be good enough for your double digit IQ, but don't get testy when people question your faulty logic.

Fed-worshipping dbag? I never even said that Federer should be number 1 on this list. Of course, I didn't expect an impaired fanboy like yourself to keep track of arguments. Phil Knight's word might be good enough for your double digit IQ, but don't get testy when people question your faulty logic.

Click to expand...

My faulty logic? You said Bo isn't the greatest athlete because he ran a fast 40. Number one, no one talked about 40 times. Number two, he clearly has done a lot more than that. I'm not a fan of the raiders and I'm certainly not a fan of the Royals, and I'm too young to remember most of his career. I'm not a fan, I'm just stating facts. And if you think you have a more valid opinion than Phil Knight on the greatness of athletes, then you just might be having delusions of grandeur. ESPN named him the greatest athlete of all time as well, are you a better judge of athleticism than the people working at ESPN? How about John Brenkus of Sports Science? Who is a better athlete, in your opinion? Grace us with your astronomical IQ.

My faulty logic? You said Bo isn't the greatest athlete because he ran a fast 40. Number one, no one talked about 40 times. Number two, he clearly has done a lot more than that. I'm not a fan of the raiders and I'm certainly not a fan of the Royals, and I'm too young to remember most of his career. I'm not a fan, I'm just stating facts

Click to expand...

Now I know you are an emotional fanboy. First, I never said "Bo was not the greatest athlete because he ran a fast 40?" What the hell are you talking about? Anyway, I was being sarcastic when I mentioned 40 yard dashes and bench presses; The idea was not to put down the light of your life, Bo Jackson; the point I was making is that the list did not give tremendous athletes like Pele and Gretzky the credit they deserved.

And if you think you have a more valid opinion than Phil Knight on the greatness of athletes, then you just might be having delusions of grandeur. ESPN named him the greatest athlete of all time as well, are you a better judge of athleticism than the people working at ESPN? How about John Brenkus of Sports Science? Who is a better athlete, in your opinion? Grace us with your astronomical IQ

Click to expand...

.
Look bo-boy, I never claimed that my opinion had more weight than Phil Knight or ESPN analyst. It was your love-stricken self that posted Phil Knight's opinion and acted like you had just set the record straight for everyone; that is faulty logic. No intelligent human being dumps his/her opinions just because a person with authority has different ones;especially if you have thought-out your opinions and have good reason to believe them. Pat Cash has stated that John Mcenroe is the most talented player ever. John Mcenroe claims that Nadal is a better volleyer than Federer. Are you saying that anyone who has a different opinion than Cash and Mcenroe has delusions of grandeur? Should everyone just accept their opinions and move on like spineless cowards because they lack Wimbledon titles? Maybe you would agree with that policy, but not everyone is as black and white as you are.

Now I know you are an emotional fanboy. First, I never said "Bo was not the greatest athlete because he ran a fast 40?" What the hell are you talking about? Anyway, I was being sarcastic when I mentioned 40 yard dashes and bench presses; The idea was not to put down the light of your life, Bo Jackson; the point I was making is that the list did not give tremendous athletes like Pele and Gretzky the credit they deserved
.
Look bo-boy, I never claimed that my opinion had more weight than Phil Knight or ESPN analyst. It was your love-stricken self that posted Phil Knight's opinion and acted like you had just set the record straight for everyone; that is faulty logic. No intelligent human being dumps his/her opinions just because a person with authority has different ones;especially if you have thought-out your opinions and have good reason to believe them. Pat Cash has stated that John Mcenroe is the most talented player ever. John Mcenroe claims that Nadal is a better volleyer than Federer. Are you saying that anyone who has a different opinion than Cash and Mcenroe has delusions of grandeur? Should everyone just accept their opinions and move on like spineless cowards because they lack Wimbledon titles? Maybe you do, but not everyone is as black and white as you are.

Click to expand...

Pat Cash and John Mcenroe are commentators, Phil Knight has built the most successful business in sports on judging talent in regards to his marketing campaigns. I'm sorry your astronomical IQ can't tell the difference. The fact that you mentioned 40 times and bench presses to downplay Jackson's athleticism just shows the fact that you probably don't know what type of athlete he really was. Or we can rewind the tape and pretend it was sarcasm.

I'm not a particular fan of Bo Jackson, this is the same argument as when people say Nadal or Sampras are the GOAT of tennis, its wrong, Fed is. But would you call me a fed fanboy? No. Its the same thing here. The dude walked into an NFL lockerroom and put on pads and became an all star without touching a football for 2 years. He set HS track and field records in events he had never done before as a freshman in HS. Its just facts.

Pat Cash and John Mcenroe are commentators, Phil Knight has built the most successful business in sports on judging talent in regards to his marketing campaigns. I'm sorry your astronomical IQ can't tell the difference. The fact that you mentioned 40 times and bench presses to downplay Jackson's athleticism just shows the fact that you probably don't know what type of athlete he really was. Or we can rewind the tape and pretend it was sarcasm.

.

Click to expand...

Bolded part: Don't be sorry. I'm perfectly happy in believing that the Nike chairman is not some omniscient being who speaks nothing but universal truths. What I'm sorry about is that you can't see the parallels between the Mcenroe/Cash argument and your own; both are illogical appeals to authority.

It was sarcasm. You are just too daft to pick up on it and were acting like a Bo-zealot.

Again, proof that you have some serious delusions of grandeur. I'm saying Phil Knight has a better hold of who is the greatest athlete of all time than you. Thats a far cry from calling him an omniscient being who speaks nothing but universal truths.

Bolded part: Don't be sorry. I'm perfectly happy in believing that the Nike chairman is not some omniscient being who speaks nothing but universal truths. What I'm sorry about is that you can't see the parallels between the Mcenroe/Cash argument and your own; both are illogical appeals to authority.

It was sarcasm. You are just too daft to pick up on it and were acting like a Bo-zealot.

Again, proof that you have some serious delusions of grandeur. I'm saying Phil Knight has a better hold of who is the greatest athlete of all time than you. Thats a far cry from calling him an omniscient being who speaks nothing but universal truths.

Click to expand...

Really? Who is the greatest athlete of all time in my books? Have I even been arguing for any particular one thus far? Nope.

The crux of my argument was that there is more to athleticism then what ESPN considered; their methodology of determining the greatest athlete was definitely more generous to American athletes. Essentially, I was arguing that someone like Pele or Gretzky was under looked.

Do you know how many people worldwide think Pele is the greatest athlete ever? Obviously not, because you are the genius who thinks a quote by Phil Knight settles this matter of debate. Delusions of granduer? That is a stupid accusation since you are accusing me of this because I said that Phil Knight does not speak for every sport fan on this planet on this issue. Heck, not even in the US as evidenced by the 5000+ comment section on the ESPN website, where the debate rages on and on.

ohh you guys ... I love RFed as much as any tennis fan here ,but all he can do is hit a tennis better than most.. all I have to say towards this argument is .. ''Have you guys seen Roger's left arm ?''

Bo Jackson has all these stories about crazy stuff he did, but numbers wise his professional sports career does not look GOAT-worthy at all. So maybe not surprising why nobody outside the US knows who he is. He could be GOAT in 'woulda/coulda/shoulda land'.
Guess he gets a lot of points for being a multi-sport athlete. Jim Thorpe was ranked second once they took the brackets away too.

Bo Jackson has all these stories about crazy stuff he did, but numbers wise his professional sports career does not look GOAT-worthy at all. So maybe not surprising why nobody outside the US knows who he is. He could be GOAT in 'woulda/coulda/shoulda land'.
Guess he gets a lot of points for being a multi-sport athlete. Jim Thorpe was ranked second once they took the brackets away too.

Click to expand...

Ya he does and you get a lot of points for proving you have no idea of what you are talking about.

I agree with Bo Jackson being the greatest athlete of all time. The guy dominated football and did pretty well in baseball too. Keep in mind he did this all without the usual offseason training that others were doing since he was playing one or the other pretty much year round. If he had focused on one or the other, there is no telling how many records he would have. Don't get me wrong, Fed is my favorite player hands down but as far as athletes are concerned, I have to give Bo the win here.

On a related note, was Deion Sanders discussed at all for this achievement? I wouldn't rank him above Bo, but he should definitely be up there in the discussion.

Is this a real post or is it trolling, if its real I feel sorry for you, if trolling nice work.

Click to expand...

A real post actually. What good is running really fast if you don't have what it takes to get your team to the world championship? Kind of like race cars that post the fastest times in qualifying but never win the actual race.

On a related note, was Deion Sanders discussed at all for this achievement? I wouldn't rank him above Bo, but he should definitely be up there in the discussion.

Click to expand...

They had to leave out a lot of people because of their bracket system so he didn't get in. At the end of the TV show they did for this they showed what the list would be if it was completely open but I can't remember if he was there (probably was, all I remember was Jim Thorpe going from absent to second).
I can't find it on youtube or anything.

lets imagine roger federer having the athleticism to be world class at two sports in terms of pure physicality and hand eye/ foot eye for a short period of time. let's say roger federer was just as talented in tennis, but decides to turn pro in futbol first out of spite, and then turn pro in tennis the following year. he maintains the ability to make unbelievable, roger federer quality highlight reels, but in two separate sports. he, however, ends up injuring himself within the first few years of his career (s) with an injury that's largely attributed to a freak occurrence that would not have happened had he not been so physically explosive, mid season before he starts priming and winning championships in either sport (in bo jackson's case, both sports were very dependent on team performance, which were lacking). he attempts a comeback, but doesn't quite return to his consistent greatness, although the comeback in itself was deemed nearly impossible.

from a pure athletic stand point, bo jackson would be near the top of nearly any list.

A real post actually. What good is running really fast if you don't have what it takes to get your team to the world championship? Kind of like race cars that post the fastest times in qualifying but never win the actual race.

Click to expand...

when your team sucks, your team sucks. Bo jackson played for the raiders (fb), kansas city royals, and white sox in his prime.

if bo was just as gifted in bowling, he may have gotten a championship.

Even though I think Bo Jackson is a definite candidate for all-time great athlete, you can't deny that ESPN has an American bias. They claim to be the "Worldwide Leader in Sports", but it's more like the "Worldwide Leader in AMERICAN sports" - that is, basketball, baseball, football and hockey. Also the Sports Science brackets were definitely a popularity contest.

You could make the argument that Roger Federer isn't even the greatest ATHLETE in tennis. He's won the most and is the most easily recognized. But do you really think he's more athletic than Djokovic or Nadal or Murray? Better player? Absolutely. But there's no way he can bench press more than Jo-Wilfried Tsonga or run faster than Gael Monfils.

Even though I think Bo Jackson is a definite candidate for all-time great athlete, you can't deny that ESPN has an American bias. They claim to be the "Worldwide Leader in Sports", but it's more like the "Worldwide Leader in AMERICAN sports" - that is, basketball, baseball, football and hockey. Also the Sports Science brackets were definitely a popularity contest.

You could make the argument that Roger Federer isn't even the greatest ATHLETE in tennis. He's won the most and is the most easily recognized. But do you really think he's more athletic than Djokovic or Nadal or Murray? Better player? Absolutely. But there's no way he can bench press more than Jo-Wilfried Tsonga or run faster than Gael Monfils.

Click to expand...

i also dislike espn's heavy-handed american approach. but then again, they do have a specific demographic to cater to.

i dont want to make excuses for bo jackson, because a lot of being a champion is realizing one's potential, but if he would have specialized in one sport, he would have not only been a great athlete, but i think a champion to boot. but because of his all-around approach to pro sports, and his lackluster career, i dont think he'll be winning any GOAT polls any time soon that aren't centered around athleticism.

I am not questioning of Bo J is or isnt. I am simply questioning the methodlogy.

Apparently Bo Jackson generates more power , Has less endurance, played more difficult sport.

Click to expand...

federer obviously achieved way more than Jackson. however if we are talking pure athleticsm not a lot of People beat Bo. that guy was super fast, could hit a ball a ton and was a Monster on the Football field. I can see why americans pick him over the frail roger.

if we talk about achievements however it is not even Close. Fed is one of the ten greatest sports persons ever while Bo was a mediocre Baseball Player.

It is impossible to compare greats in their own sports over other sports. This Bo fella, I've never heard of him but any high level athlete is a freak of nature- but a different freak.

Ask this Bo chap to run 10K and he's be some distance back on any club runner.

In the UK we have a show called superstars which runs every now and then- it's not taken particularly seriously but brings in top level athletes from differnt sports and they compete against each other in a range of sports.

In the last one I saw I watched Mo Farah (5 & 10K Olympic champion) and the Brownlee Brothers (Gold & Bronze Olympic Triathletes) get absolutely trounced over 100metres by a unknown amatuer boxer weighing 230lbs, albeit an Olympic gold medalist.

Some of the UK's greatest Olympians (Steve Redgrave/Daley Thompson) have done this event and not done that well.

At the top level it's impossible to compare individual athletes. There are a few multi sports professionals (Ian Botham-Cricket & Soccer, Rebecca Romero-Rowing & Cycling,) but this is less about the athleticism and more about the skill and the right match.

I can think of quite a few example of where you could describe someone as a world class athlete, but not necessarily a world class tennis/rugby/football player.
James Haskell- has won 50 plus international rugby caps for England- he is a beast of a man, but not necessarily a massively gifted rugby player.

The world heard of Bo Derek, but who is this Bo Jackson chap? Some American super-star ?

Click to expand...

Google. Bo Jackson was a great athlete that played multiple professional sports. Apparently, had Bo wanted to be a runner, it's possible that he could of been world class. Bo was just so talented and had the option to pick what to play. He was the face of Nike, with the whole Bo series Nike Ads.

Only on a tennis forum would people actually believe Federer is possibly the greatest athlete of all time.

This would be an absolutely laughable contention anywhere else, "American bias" or not. The best tennis players are rarely the best athletes even in their own sport. Dominating a particular sport does not imply athleticism, otherwise Earl Anthony (master bowler) and Phil Taylor (unparallelled darts player), hardly what one would call "athletes", would have to be considered.

That being said, it is pointless to even have a "greatest athlete of all time" debate. There may have been ancient Greek Olympians who could perform feats that would marvel us today, but we don't know. "All time" seems to extend back only to about 1900, at the earliest.

OP: you come off as too butt-hurt that Federer is not considered the best at something. He comes up short in many catagories--like many athletes, so why is this such a big deal? He was compared to one with numerous superior gifts, and came up short.

OP: you come off as too butt-hurt that Federer is not considered the best at something. He comes up short in many catagories--like many athletes, so why is this such a big deal? He was compared to one with numerous superior gifts, and came up short.

Not a crime.

Click to expand...

Reread my posts. I made it amply clear that i disagree with the methodology ESPN applied. This isnt about RM Federer.

Only on a tennis forum would people actually believe Federer is possibly the greatest athlete of all time.

This would be an absolutely laughable contention anywhere else, "American bias" or not. The best tennis players are rarely the best athletes even in their own sport. Dominating a particular sport does not imply athleticism, otherwise Earl Anthony (master bowler) and Phil Taylor (unparallelled darts player), hardly what one would call "athletes", would have to be considered.

That being said, it is pointless to even have a "greatest athlete of all time" debate. There may have been ancient Greek Olympians who could perform feats that would marvel us today, but we don't know. "All time" seems to extend back only to about 1900, at the earliest.

Only on a tennis forum would people actually believe Federer is possibly the greatest athlete of all time.

This would be an absolutely laughable contention anywhere else, "American bias" or not. The best tennis players are rarely the best athletes even in their own sport. Dominating a particular sport does not imply athleticism, otherwise Earl Anthony (master bowler) and Phil Taylor (unparallelled darts player), hardly what one would call "athletes", would have to be considered.

That being said, it is pointless to even have a "greatest athlete of all time" debate. There may have been ancient Greek Olympians who could perform feats that would marvel us today, but we don't know. "All time" seems to extend back only to about 1900, at the earliest.

Click to expand...

It was worth a thread. Atleast a tad better than some of the GOAT threads

Bo jackson was a decent baseball player, never was great at the sport.
Had 32 home runs and 105 RBI as the best year which is good.

He was good at football but nothing great.

So very good to play both.

Click to expand...

I think he's better as a football player than baseball. He took over the role of Marcus Allen as the main running back. I agree Bo's career achievement wasn't that great because of a short career due to injury.

That's not true. Outside of this forum most people also believe Fed is widely considered the goat. ESPN pick Fed to represent tennis, Grezky for hockey, Jordan for basketball.

Click to expand...

Re-read what I wrote. Only on a tennis forum would Federer be considered the best athlete of all time.

Yes, he is likely the greatest tennis player of all time according to contemporary criteria. However, such a conclusion does not entail that Federer is even the best athlete in his own sport. John McEnroe dominated tennis for a few years; he was hardly a great athlete unless you believe hand-eye coordination and feel equals great athleticism. In that case, Phil Taylor, master dartsman, would have to be considered an equal, if not greater, athlete.

Excellent achievement in sport does not mean excellent athleticism. The degree of athleticism required to succeed in a given sport varies by the sport.
Tennis requires some degree of athleticism, but much less compared to sports like American football, swimming, cycling, track, boxing, etc.

And no, having great footwork and movement does not make you a superhuman athlete, unless you want to bring figure skaters and ballroom dancers into this discussion.